"Social warning" from Russia: we are ready for war; are you?

One of the most striking differences between the Russian and Western media is the fact that the topic of a possible war is constantly discussed in the former and almost never in the latter.  In Russia, the main news shows discuss the risks of war, as do a lot of well-known personalities, and on talk-shows this is a recurrent topic.  Even Putin recently had to declare that he did not believe that a war was likely.  It is as if both Russia and the West were like two trains on the same tracks, going at full speed towards each other but with one big difference: the western "train" is steaming forward with its eyes closed, while the Russian train is going forward with its eyes wide open.

The second big difference is the rage and determination which are expressed by Russians of all walks of life.  The most often heard sentence now is "Русские не сдаются" (Russians don't surrender).  Russians find it amazing and absolutely crazy that the western "leaders" have apparently convinced themselves that the Russians will "blink" and let Obama scare them into not standing up for the Donbass.  The mood is "if you really want a fight, then we will give you one".

One example if in the Russian social media and the blogosphere.  Today, a reader posted a link to a Russian video (thanks!) which I want to post here and I will add a video I saw earlier.

Please watch these videos and don't be too quick to dismiss them as irrelevant.  They are an expression of the mood of a big part of the Russian society which has mentally already entered what I would call a "war mode".  To ignore these "social warning" would be a huge mistake.  I have been saying that over and over again, Russia is ready for war.  It gives me no pleasure to say that (actually it scares me), but I think that this warning must be circulated as widely as possible: Russia will not "blink" and Russia will not surrender.  Russia will not attack first - that is utter nonsense - but if she is attacked, she will strike back with everything she has.

The Saker

Mujahideen-e Khalq goes from "terrorist" to "freedom fighter" in perparation for war on Iran

Just as it had done with the KLA before the US/NATO war on Serbia, the USA is about to take the local terrorist group, in this case the Mujahideen-e Khalq, off its official terror list.  That makes sense politically and it is legally necessary to make it easier to fund, train and otherwise assist it: US assistance to various terrorist groups worldwide is usually provided only covertly which, of course, complicates its delivery.

Besides, the overnight re-branding of the local terrorist groups into "freedom fighters" is the normal procedure before any overt military aggression against another country. Hence the following statement by Dana Rohrabacher:

"The MEK are Iranians who desire a secular, peaceful, and democratic government."

Yet another "indicator and warning" that an attack on Iran is in the making.  The Imperial propaganda machine ("Innocence of Muslims", re-branding of Mujahideen-e Khalq) is now in full swing and the public opinion carefully "massaged" in preparation for a US assault on Iran.

The Saker

PS: a fitting tribute to the US regime 


 

46 Warships and 7,000 Troops Reported to Be Heading to Central American Country and Coast

By Jamie Way for The Narco News Bulletin

In a controversial decision that is likely to fan the flames of regional tensions in Latin America, Costa Rica recently granted the US permission to move 7,000 troops and 46 warships (along with their accompanying planes and helicopters) into Costa Rican waters. Officially, the act is considered to be part of the “Drug War,” which appears to be increasingly more war-like in nature due to such actions and mounting violence in Mexico and Colombia. Costa Rica’s neighbors, however, see the massive military presence as a potential base for regional strikes.

Due to the long history of US intervention in Latin America (perhaps most notably in neighboring Nicaragua), the region is clearly justified in its concern over the disproportionate and virtual invasion of troops into an area that could potentially provide such a logistical and geographic striking point. Internally, many Costa Ricans are questioning the military presence and its impact on the nation’s sovereignty. One party, the United Social Christian Party, has even brought forth a claim questioning the constitutionality of such an act. The Citizen Action Party, the United Social Christian Party and its former presidential candidate, Luis Fishman, have been amongst the most vocal opponents of the US military presence. Fishman has compared the permission granted to handing the US a carte blanche, and has denounced the act as having negative repercussions for the nation’s sovereignty.

The US has responded by disregarding opposition. According to a Tico Times article, US Ambassador Anne Andrew responded by saying, “We are not sure why there is this uproar,” and furthermore stated that the request was the same as the one that had been submitted each year for the last decade under a bilateral agreement. Past agreements, opposition argues, however, appear to have only granted US vessels permission to enter the area in pursuit of suspects and do not seem to have mentioned troop or warship presence. Furthermore, the opposition argues that the massive military presence of 7,000 troops and 46 warships is a disproportionate and inappropriate measure for fighting narcotics trafficking and money laundering.

Regardless of how this act varies from past US actions, it is clear that within the present context, the military surge is more disconcerting. This action comes amidst increasing disappointment with the Obama administration and its failure to create mutual respect between the US and Latin America as many had hoped. In fact, to the contrary, through the shuffling and increase of military presence in the region, not only has the relationship with the US remained strained, but additionally regional tensions have flared. Due to the newly won access to seven bases in Colombia (said to replace the loss of a base in Ecuador), regional relations have been further strained. Tensions remain high between Colombia and many of the countries in the region led my left leaning leaders, who see the US military presence in the region as a direct threat to their democratic rule. In fact, the Colombian-US agreement even drew heavy criticism from President Lula of Brazil, who is widely known to be one of the regions most reasonable actors.

From its Southern border to South America, the US has increased its military presence. Most recently, the Obama administration sent 1,200 troops to the US-Mexico border, further militarizing this already violent area. This regional increase in military presence is also accompanied by an increase in military and police aid. According to a report by the Center for International Policy, the Latin America Working Group Education Fund, and the Washington Office on Latin America, during most of the 2000s, military and police aid accounted for less than 40 percent of all aid that the US sent to Latin America. However this year, before aid to Haiti is added to the equation, military and police aid will total approximately 47 percent of all US aid to the region. Perhaps most telling, after 58 years of inactivity, in 2008 the US government reactivated the 4th Fleet, the navy fleet in charge of the waters in the Southern Command.

Amidst a growing climate of US militarism and the militarization of its relations with Latin America, the region is justified in its apprehension over impending threats to its sovereignty. While the media speculates about war against Iran, US solidarity activists are concerned about the near to total media blackout of news about the escalation of US militarism in our own hemisphere. Whether all of this is a mere shifting of the pawns or an increase, this massive military presence in the region (paired with the US’s regional track record) necessitates careful vigilance if we are to address US military expansionism.

Israeli troop movements

Several sources are reporting Israeli troop concentrations at the border with Lebanon. That, combined with very bellicose statements of at least one Israeli minister are resulting in rumors about an imminent Israeli attack on Lebanon (Netanyahu already denied any such intentions).

I do not believe that the Israelis are about to attack Lebanon, and most definitely not with a ground operation.

The only circumstance in which I think that could happen is as part of a greater US-Israeli attack on Iran. From the Israeli point of view, striking at Hezbollah in Lebanon preemptively as part of a "active defense" of the Jews in Palestine would make sense.

So the real question is: are the USA and Israel about to strike at Iran?

I still believe that such an attack will happen sooner or later. Everything is pretty much in place for it and I am not aware of any indicators and warning which would indicate any further preparatory steps for such an attack. Unless, of course, we consider the current Israeli troop movements as exactly such an indicator.

I sure hope that the folks in Tehran are monitoring this very, very, carefully.

The Saker